As the commercial goes, "Change is good." It certainly is a good slogan for Barack Obama, who legitimately promises it. So, other presidential candidates, care to spare a little change as well?

I'm not talking about changing your campaign to make yourself electable for the flavor of the moment. Not talking about changing your strategy by shedding crocodile tears. I'm talking about a policy from the outset whose goal is changing this country once you get elected.

As this article says: THE only common promise offered in the campaign rhetoric of US presidential hopefuls is change. But if this is to be more than policy loose change, it must effectively mean regime change in Washington.

That means changing the warring ways of the current administration; changing the economic, social, evironmental, etc. course for a better America. It does not mean changing the way the government is structured so that a few key corporate interests can make-out like bandits.

And you can't be a fake agent of Change. You can't all of a sudden discover you've got enough millions and loose change to make your campaign appear as if it wants change, too, like Mitt Romney. People will see through that. They'll call if flip-flopping. Or going through the motions for "change" sake.

Or like John McCain, who limits his view of change to mean just getting rid of an already tired-old Secretary of Defense. Real change means not staying the course with the current failed practices of the current administration. People will just say, "Ah, he'll never change -- a thing."

John Edwards comes close in talking about change when he says that we need to leave "... America better than we found it, and [give] our children a better life than we had. That's what this is about. That's what this change is about."

And Mike Huckabee unwittingly talks of it when he declared in Iowa that "... we will forever change the way Americans look at their political system ... ." Little does he realize that most Americans will really view that as changing America so that charlatans can't keep a strangle hold on the American people, the constitution, and the executive office.

At least Edwards is taking the moral imperative approach. For too long we as a species have been ignoring what we are leaving our children to deal with because we are too greedy and afraid to do something ourselves.

Of course the idea that we pass on a false god that told us to rape and pillage our world for our own good doesn't help and fits more into their pattern of ""use it or lose it philosophy of conquest. Lies like that have led us to our present state of indifference to other people and the planet and our combined helplessness to act to improve on the conditions we have created.

When the choice you have is change that reflects business as usual, then we know we are being set up to fall, as there is only one place to go with these potential potentates- same old same old. Of all the liars out there, the only liars that talk a talk to be trusted and might do real change is Edwards and Kucinich.

But with all liars, how long can they be trusted with all that power?

_________________Completely sane world
madness the only freedom

An ability to see both sides of a question
one of the marks of a mature mind